hope in the mercy of God to save their souls, only tends to cherish a delusion, which is likely to prove their ruin. It is better to treat them as rational beings-endowed with understanding and reflection,-as men, who are capable of knowing the whole process, by which salvation is to be attained. Tell them the whole truth: make their own exertions indispensable, by shewing them that the mercy of God is not, and cannot be exercised in pardoning sins, of which they do not repent, which they still love to retain, but only in leading them to repentance. If man's pride and contumacy prevent the word and providence of God from producing this effect, his salvation becomes impossible. Ephraim is joined unto idols;-let him alone.'

In making hope a motive for action we generally commit another error. We make no distinction between doing good from a love of goodness, and doing it from hope of reward in heaven. When we do good from hope of reward in heaven, it is obvious that we make it a religious motive; and although it is far from being the highest religious motive, it is the highest and purest exercise of hope. The error consists in regarding it as a religious motive of the first order. That it is not so, may be inferred from the fact, that it is in some degree selfish. When one acts with reference to a temporal reward, we esteem him selfish, and as possessing only worldly motives. The motive becomes religious by transferring the reward from the present to the eternal world; because we then connect with it an acknowledgment of a God, of revelation, of a future state of reward and punishment, and hence the distinction between virture and vice, and the connection of the one with happiness, and of the other with misery.

We infer that doing good from hope of reward in heaven, is not absolutely evil, because it does not imply hatred to our neighbour. He that acts from this motive, proposes his own happiness; but he designs to obtain it by conformity to the laws of God, and, hence, without impairing the good of his neighbour. Still his acts have no claim to disinterested benevolence, because the end for which they are done, is not goodness itself, but the reward of goodness.

This view may teach us something of the divine mercy in the government of men. When an error cannot be corrected, or an evil removed, without violating our freedom, the Lord in His merciful providence endeavours so to convert it, or change its direction, that it may secure to us some degree of good. From doing good through fear of punishment, such a change is effected, that we do good from hope of reward. This hope is at first gross and earthly, but by another change or con

version, its object is transferred from the present to a future world; and it is modified and regulated by a regard to the good of others, and by submission to the divine will. By these conversions or changes, the selfishness from which our hope proceeds, is made to possess a certain agreement with the end of the divine Providence; and the means for accomplishing its purposes are the same. If man permits himself to be still further improved, what had been done from hope of reward in heaven, is afterwards done from the love itself of doing good. Heaven is then established within the mind, and fruition takes the place of hope. Such are the devices, if we may so say, of the divine mercy for the salvation of man. He doth devise means that his banished be not expelled from him.' Even in the deep sleep of the soul, He openeth the ears of man and sealeth their instruction, that He may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.'

But, although it is possible in many cases so to convert man's selfishness, that his mind may possess some sort of conformity to the word of God, still, to act from hope of reward in heaven, is, as we have already implied, very far from that state, to which we should attain in the present life.

To perform good actions because they are in themselves good, and that they may produce other good actions, seems the only measure of virtue, which deserves to be called truly human, for this alone is an image and likeness of God. He that acts from this motive, clearly perceives that the good which he does is not from his natural mind, in which self has the dominion, but from his spiritual, regenerate mind, in which the kingdom of the Lord is established. His good affections and deeds are born,' like the mind from which they proceed, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,—but of God.' Thus he perceives that the good which he does, is not from himself, but from God: and he loves it because it is from Him. Or, in other words, he regards the Lord as present with him and in him, by the good affections and truths which He communicates to his mind; and the good which is in his affections, and the truth which is in his thoughts, are consequently God, as manifested to him, dwelling in him, and operating by him. In loving the good which he does, he, therefore, loves it because it is of God, and because, in its internal character, it is God. But those who act from other motives, generally ascribe their goodness to themselves; and they love it for its reward.

The disciple and advocate of self-love will ask here, whether in the most advanced state of the regenerate life, to which we

have alluded, man does not do good because it is pleasant to him, and hence from merely selfish motives. We reply, that it makes an essential difference, whether the pleasure accompanying a good act, arise from the essential character of the action, and its effect on others; or whether it arise from a consideration of its effect on ourselves, either present or future. But-what is. more important to be considered, if the good of the action be ascribed entirely to the Lord instead of ourselves, its selfish character totally ceases. If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in My love, even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in His love.'

S. W.

OPINIONS OF FOREIGN JEWS.

[Extracted from the Journal of Mr. Fisk, Missionary to Palestine.]

THE most interesting part of my labours in Alexandria, has been among the Jews. I have become particularly acquainted with three. One of them is Dr. M. who was brother Parsons's physician. He is a native of Germany, but has been many years in this place. He is reputed skilful in his profession, is one of the Pasha's physicians, and is a man of extensive learning and very respectable talents. He has a library of about 2,000 volumes, among which are the Scriptures in different languages, and several valuable theological books. He shewed. me the writings of Eusebius, and spoke of them as highly valuable. He has also the works of several of the Christian fathers.

He knew Mr. Burkhardt, and speaks well of him; though he speaks of no person in so high terms as of Mr. Wolf, the converted Jew from Poland, who is now gone to Judea to preach Jesus to his countrymen. Dr. M. had frequent religious dis cussions with him, and says he is very learned, very judicious, and exceedingly amiable.

We hoped to be able to enter into some interesting discussions with him, but did not intend to begin immediately. At almost his first visit, however, he told us that Mr. Wolf had spoken to him concerning us. We then entered into conversation concerning the Jews. He says there are about 400 in this place. Their language is Arabic; they read Hebrew, but understand very little of it; and are exceedingly ignorant, barbarous, and superstitious. I then said, They are still waiting for the Messiah.' He replied, Yes; but they care very little

about the Messiah that has come, or any one that will come. They might easily be hired to consent, that there should never be a Messiah.' Speaking of the Talmud, which he studied a long time, while young, he said,It is a perfect Babel, a confusion of language, a confusion of logic, theology, and every thing else. In a whole volume, you will scarcely find twelve sentences worth reading.' I observed, No pretended Messiah has now appeared for a long time.' And I hope,' said he, 'none ever will appear. In Europe it would be impossible for one to succeed; he would soon be detected. In this country he would probably lose his head immediately. If any monarch should now undertake to assemble the Jews, they could not live together. The Jews of Germany, of England, of France, of Spain, and of Asia differ so much, that they would not tolerate each other. The way to make Jews Christians, is to give them the privileges of citizens, and let them intermarry with Christians. If Bonaparte had reigned 50 years, there would have been no Jews in France. All would have been blended with the other citizens.' For himself, he says frankly, that he does not believe in any revelation, though he thinks it would be very inconsistent with the goodness of God to punish any of his creatures for ever, and therefore believes that all will ultimately be happy. He says, a few, and only a few of the Jews know how to converse in the ancient Hebrew. There is more Rabbinical learning among the Jews of Poland, than any where else. The best mode of reading Hebrew, however, is that of the Italian and Spanish, in distinction from the German. He thinks the vowel points were invented after the Babylonish captivity, because the Jews had so far lost the knowledge of their language, that only a few learned scribes knew how to read it. One day I asked him, 'What is your opinion of the Messiah?" 'For myself,' said he, 'I do not think a Messiah ever did come, or ever will come; but I wish others to entertain their own opinions about it. My wife is strong in her belief of Judaism. Her idea is, that religion consists in keeping Saturday, and not eating pork. Among my domestics, I have one Greek, two Mussulmauns, and a female servant from the interior of Africa, who was never instructed, and has no idea of any religion whatever; and the young man in my shop is an atheist. In my opinion I differ from them all. Still we live in peace.' He says the Jews are very strict in their adherence to Scripture rules, in respect to meats, and drinks, and days, with many additions of the Talmud. It is literally true, that in order to kill a fowl according to law, one must be a learned man.

He speaks of the Gospel as containing very sublime morality, and of Jesus Christ as holding a high rank, and possessing a most unexceptionable character, when viewed as a lawgiver, and the founder of a sect; and says the stories in the Talmud concerning him are ridiculous and absurd beyond all conception. He one day took up a Hebrew Testament, and turned to the sermon on the mount and said, 'This is excellent. This would be good to read to the people every day.'

I one day asked his opinion concerning the plural names of God in Hebrew. He says it is merely an idiom of the language. Elohim is used in reference to the character of God as Judge; and hence the same term is applied to human magistrates. Jehovah refers to God as the object of adoration; and hence the superstition of the Jews in respect to pronouncing that name, which leads them to substitute Lord instead of it. Several Jews, with whom I have conversed, have all given the same opinion on this point.

He gave me, one day, a most horrible picture of the state of morals in this country, particularly among the Turks and Mamelukes. The most unnatural crimes are committed without shame, and almost without any attempt at concealment.Among the nominal Christians of this country, he says there is no morality; and a signs as the reason of this,-that morality is never found among slaves.

I lent him the Life of Frey, and the Memoirs of Martyn, which he read and returned. A few days since, I sent him an English Bible, and several tracts in different languages. The next time I met with him, he told me, that the title of one of the tracts interested him extremely. To use his own phrase, it pierced his skin. This was Leslie's short Method with the Deists, which I sent to him in French. He thinks, however, that the argument is appl cable to other religions as well as the Christian, and therefo e proves nothing. This was the last interview I have had wh him. He has just sent me three letters of recommendation to Jews at Cairo.

Another Jew, with whom I have had frequent conversations, is an aged man, named Jacob. Though he is 62 years old, and, in consequence of an ophthalmia, has been eight years blind, he is still the head master in a Jewish school of 40 children. He thinks the whole number of Jews in this town, is 6 or 700. I one day went with him to visit the largest of the two synagogues which the Jews have in the city, and then to his school. His assistant was sitting on a sheep-skin, spread on the floor, with about 30 boys on the floor around him, with their Hebrew books.